About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20
government and freep enterprise movement and connect those policies. >> why has there been a failure to connect? >> i'm not sure there is one reason for it and i haven't had time to think about it why it has happened but it needs to happen. the principles we stand for, free enterprise and limited government is the only way to stabilize and grow our middle class which i hope every american can attain. >> how worried are you about the republican chances -- >> you mean from the voters' perspective. the demographic changes? i don't think any voter in america -- there are voters that are locked into one party or the other but the fastest growing group is people who vote for candidates and not parties and people understand the issues and hopes that they have and offer real and concrete policy situations and real role for government to play in addressing those angst yits they face. we are one election away to do it. we have to recognize what it is and concentrate on doing it. >> how much of a danger to republicans do you think is posed by the changing demographic? >> it's not a danger but i
governments, spending 42% of the gdp. and we want to make any effort to stop that? or are we discussing to say it has never stopped before? >> i think the earlier social security, not fully implemented. there was no medicare. it has been pretty stable since 1980. it goes up and down with the business cycle, but it is pretty stable. this is the division between the right and left. who will continue to fight about bigger government and smaller government. we will not do it by refusing to pay for the government we have, thinking the economy in the process. that would be a good start, as a backdrop. i want to touch on your question about corporate and individual taxes. the third piece is small businesses. we work out how develop a tax code that is good for competitiveness. you need to think about how those play into it. i think one of the things to keep hearing through messages with different groups of people is, while everybody is aware that the solution is going to take sacrifices from all sides, on spending, on revenues -- the confidence you get for putting the deal in place to actually has tre
poll. it found 62% of americans would like to see the federal government leaders compromise on an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff budget measures set to go into effect next month. more than twice the 25% who want leaders to stick to their principles. a majority of all party groups favor compromise. here is the breakdown from the gallup organization. 71% of democrats say they want a compromise bursa's 21% who say the party should stick to their principles. among republicans 55% one compromise. 35% say stick to your principles. the gallup poll also found americans are more optimistic and pessimistic that an agreement will be reached before the deadline. 58% say it is a very or somewhat likely leaders will find a solution. 39% say it is not likely. democrats are much more optimistic. 77% of democrats believe it is somewhat likely an agreement will be reached compared to 33% of republicans. we will be getting to all of the latest on the fiscal clef. we want to hear from you about the idea of compromise. comments already coming in from the facebook page. you can give us a cal
. the government didn't think it could distinguish between mortgage interest and other kinds of interest. less interest is deductible now. some of the things are left over from the early days of the tax code. there is no magic about allowing people to deduct mortgage interest and not the interest they pay on their credit cards. some of these things are hard to explain. host: does it incentivize home buying? guest: it does provide some if incentive for buying a home and is a large tax break and gives them an enormous benefits. it mostly provides an incentive for buying a bigger house. it seems to incentivize mcmansions. there is a fair question of whether that is something we should be spending that much money on. host: let's go to ohio, robert is a democrat. caller: yes, my question is this. a question/comment. i have seen all these outbreaks been giving out. supposedly they were created for an incentive for them to hire more people. they were given as four years and years. a majority of these companies did very little in hiring. they say they still need to do this. why should we continue givi
this to a c.e.o. in the crowd. so maybe david, you could take this. what role should the government play in the future of -- your business is transportation, too -- in the transportation business with this? look, we are mired in conversations about a fiscal cliff on the very right now. we're talking about long-term infrastructure build-out, a long-term energy plan. what role should c.e.o.'s have and the federal government have in making sure this gets done? >> this is the perfect opportunity for the federal government and for state governments to work together to achieve a common goal, right? there's plenty of times where, when we run a business, our interests might not coalesce with the interests of either of the parties. as fred said, this is the opportunity that we have never had in this country before, where you can have consumer, the business and the governments all working together to take advantage of this huge resource, if you want to call it saudi america. from a waste management perspective, for us it makes so much sense, because it makes business sense. we get about $1.65 equi
in of government at the federal level. that has nothing to do with this. that would be more on the spending cuts. host: what do you make of the back a plan being reported by the new york times saying if we cannot come to some sort of deal, we should just passed tax cuts for the middle class americans and then fight later on for spending cuts and increasing taxes for the wealthy? caller: the tax cut for the general population is great. that would be good for stimulating the economy. but the big thing is hit there needs to be a balanced plan. we need more revenue and we need less spending at the federal level. what is good for california is not good for virginia and what's good for virginia is not good for maryland. maybe we need to focus on reducing the federal government overview. been there would not be as much spending or taxes needed. then let the states deal with the taxes they need to take care of their citizens. host: robert, milwaukee, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that the republican party, not all of them, i think it's just the tea party, they are destroying the republi
a divided government. it is up to us to make this divided government work. we have to set aside partisan concerns. how to work together to prepare this economy to get people back on their feet? how do we get this sense of real security and upper mobility for all americans, especially those in need? they are the same. the old ways will not do. we need new thinking and renewed efforts from all americans. it is true that president obama won reelection. i congratulate him on his victory. on january 20, he will face a a fiscal economy and and i mess. you might say he will inherit these problems. [laughter] [applause] he his second term, i hope t will offer fresh ideas. failure will mean for more years of -- four more years we have work to do. -- four more years. we have work to do. serious solutions for serious reforms, we thank him for doing that. [applause] the election did not go our way. the republican party cannot make excuses. we cannot have the next four years on the sidelines. we need to apply our timeless principles to the challenges of the day. our party excels at representing that
and whether that is a cost savings at the end of each day for government and for families. >> one final question on the immediate and we will go back to the broader agenda. the president had a firm statement this week about the test ceiling where he says, i will not play that game, meaning he will not negotiate for raising the debt ceiling. how was that going to work? does that need to be part of any agreement to appoint -- agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff? >> this is serious fiscal and tax policy. it is about the economic future of our country and making sure this country continues to be the greatest economy and the greatest country in the world. it is not a game. i am with the president on this one. we saw the response of the market in august with the republicans were willing to go off of the fiscal cliff. some of them are saying it now, not paying on our debt and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states. this is not a game. if we do not pay our bills and pay our debt, we are going to see interest rates going up. it is not where you make the decision about spending
, a bloomberg government former members of both parties said negotiators should be able to reach an agreement. in an hour, president obama speaks to ceo's at the business roundtable, followed by news conferences with house speaker john boehner and minority leader nancy pelosi. >> the supreme court will look at what was passed in 2008 by a majority of six-three, i believe, and they will say that is precedent. indiana had a voter i.d. -- >> they decided on the indiana case, it was constitutional for them to establish id they did not say all of that was subsequently -- >> they talked about indiana. you misrepresented what i said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people voter i.d. loss disproportionately affect minorities -- implies to me that somehow we have something missing in our brain. as -- if white americans can get id to vote and go through all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left.
of government, and the president is proposing to grow it more. to spend more. the problem is isn't tax policy, mr. speaker. the problem is spending. you know, mr. speaker, we hear a lot about fairness. i want to talk a little bit about that now. i'm going to switch to tax policy because that's what everybody seems to be obsessed with in the media. i want to make sure we dispel some of the myths of what's going on there. i went to dictionary.com as i'm apt to do, mr. speaker, and printed out what fair is. they said free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. the first definition. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. and two, legitimately thought, pursued, done, or given proper under the rules. fair. but i think we all support fairness. i'm certain that we do, but i'm absolute certain what president obama believes is fair is different from what the people i represent believe is fair. and what i brought here, mr. speaker, is a chart from the joint committee on taxation, that's the group here on capitol hill that is in charge of measuring all the tax policy, it's a nonpartisan group, they just
government if it is not paid out? once you open up a claim, just because you have got to clean open, you have $4,000 in your account -- massachusetts, you might have $15,000 in your account. that money, if you do not dried out, the state keeps it, i believe. -- draw it out, the state keeps it, i believe. guest: i am not sure how that would be handled. the difference between what is happening in the state fund, which is state-funded, and the federal reimbursement, i believe the federal reimbursement only goes to the states after they pick up the money. guest: that is my understanding as well. i did nothing states are able to keep money that is not disbursed to the unemployment. -- do not think states are able to keep money that is not disbursed to the unemploymed. -- unemployed. host: for you, mr. tanner, who is better at running these programs, the state governments or federal governments? guest: states have very different economic climates. what is going on the dakotas right now, they're not even eligible for this emergency unemployment extended benefits, versus new york, which has the highe
yesterday on c- span2. if any family brand their house all the way the u.s. government ran there's, if we could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:
. where are we going to get it? coming from the government, everybody thinks that are entitled to something. thank you for the call. the top solution is to break the congressional gridlock. north dakota on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. the number one priority is bringing jobs home from china. host: you are on the air. go ahead, roger. caller: these people that sold our country out, they need to be exiled to themselves. host: good morning on the independent line. what is the number-one priority as the president embarks on a second term? caller: the issue a want to talk about this morning is one both sides agree with. everybody agrees but the tax code needs to be reformed, simplified. it needs to be changed in a permanent way where businessmen and individuals can plan for the future. there are multiple ways to do this, cut in reductions, giving everybody a fair chance to the tax code. i think it will really chance the economy. put it on a solid basis for businesses to plan and go into the future with. host: what do you think the president's number one priority should
, government, and not spending enough money to keep people employed. inking money out of the system would drive off the unemployment system. ployment up the uneml rate. to become the primary reason to extend unemployment is just the compassionate thing to do. people rely on the benefits. it would be a crushing blow. they provide a crucial crutch for the economy that still needs it. host: we are taking your calls the numbers are there for you. we will still have the line for those receiving of employment insurance -- tool 2-585-383. you can give us a call on that line. i want to talk about the bureau of labor statistics on unplowed numbers that are out as a just a couple of minutes ago -- on employment numbers that are out just as a couple of minutes ago in an employment rate is down to 7.7%. mr. josh bivens, how will that play into the debate over the extension of unemployment insurance? guest: i am not sure. i am afraid we have had such low expectations that people might see this as a fantastic jobs report. i have not gone into the details. the headline number, 146,000 jobs is not fantastic. i
, the revenues have gone down, the income tax has gone up, and the size of government has gone up. from my standpoint, a value- added tax is just a way to grossly expand the size of the government, and it does not fix our revenue problems. more importantly than that, just the point where i think this argument ends up, the american people would annihilate any party that passed a national sales tax rate. if the democratic party thinks they are in charge now, and they are, and the republican party has done some things to marginalize itself, but if you want to resurrect a republican party, give me a value-added tax. >> let's take the value-added tax off the table for this the session, and i want to turn to donald marron and bring it back to the reality we are today and get your numbers perspective. speaker boehner offered up to the president $800 billion in revenue, all through closing loopholes dealing with deductions, no increase in rates. first of all, on the basic math, can you get to $800 billion over 10 years that way? how would you do it? and more importantly, as i worked my sources on
from the white house was let's fix this problem by incorporating a small businesses and less government intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows
options will get the revenue for the government. >> in terms of getting rid of deductions or expanding the base, there's basically three approaches to we can take. one is the overall cap. capping the total amount of deductions or capping the tax value of deductions like maya and marty feld stein have put forth and the advantage to that is politically you're not actually attacking anyone -- any one specific subsidy, you're just saying we're putting a cap on the overall system. a second way is what john podesta mentioned, we are going to change specific items but wohl change them all in the same way. you're not special, we're not picking on you, so we're going to change all deductions to 18% or something like that. the third way which is probably the perfect way from the economic approach is to deal with each of these on an individual bay sess. tax expenditures generally cover an enormous range of activities whether it's ex-cluges or deductions or credits or lower rates, etc. we call them all tax expenditures but it shouldn't hide the underlying heterogeneity. so a package that went afte
, security, public safety, those are the fundamental obligations of government. and secondly, we live in an increasingly dangerous world with increasing threats against our citizens and targets that are viewed as high profile. for those reasons, mr. speaker and others, i earnestly believe those who serve this country as president should never have to worry about their personal safety. under current law, protection for president obama and president george w. bush will cease after 10 years. both men are young, enjoy good health and have long lives ahead of them postpresidency. this bill proposes to extend that security for the remainder of their lives. there's an unintended anomaly, mr. speaker, that were current law not changed, barbara bush would have more safety than if they were president themselves. the person and the symbol of our presidency is safe and secure for the occuration of their natural lives. with that i would yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, before i yield to the distinguished gentlelady fr
the authority of our government. that we may be a blessing to all the nations of the world. in a time of prosperity, fill our thoughts with thankfulness, and let us not lose our trust in you. let this national tree be a reminder that in some inexplicable way you are standing next to us at all times. all this we ask in your most holy name, amen. >> good evening. i have asked the national park foundation and the national park service. it is a privilege to participate in the national christmas tree lighting. 90 years ago, the scrams tradition -- this grand tradition began. through the years, the tradition has continued in times of peace and times of war. times of prosperity and times of hardship. steadfast and true for 90 years, we have come here. tonight, we gather in the majesty of president's park to honor this place. in our nation is woven together with moments and places such as these. each with a unique and honorable story to share. places like that smelly, yosemite, yellowstone, places that the remind us of our leaders. in the places that honor our highest ideals and remind us of
spirit those to whom we have entrusted the authority of our government, that there may be justice and peace at home and that we may be a plessing to all the nations of the world. in the time of pross terty, fill our parties with thankfulness and in the day of trouble let us not lose our trust in you. let this national tree be a reminder that in some inexplicable way you are standing with us at all times. all this we ask in your most holy name, amen. >> good evening. on behalf of the national park foundation and national park service it is a great privilege to present the national christmas tree lithing. just steps from here 90 years ago this grand tradition began as a small group of people gathered together to celebrate the holiday season in our nation. through the the years the tradition has continued, in times of peace and war and times of prosperity and hardship. steadfast for 90 years we have come here. tonight we gather again to honor this moment and this place. it's part of the great american story. our nation is woven together by moments and places such as these, each with
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)